France nukes deal with Iran

[georgephillip]

"The following is a list of United Nations resolutions that concern both Israel and Palestine and bordering states such as Lebanon. The Human Rights Council has adopted more resolutions condemning Israel than it has all other states combined."

Not sure where Iran places on the above list.

List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Human Rights council is famous for only caring about human rights in non Islamic countries.

Because Israel was created to assist the US and its European junior partners in controlling Middle East oil resources, as recent events from Iraq, Libya, and Syria make clear to those not blinded by ideology, the USCHR's special rapporteur on Israel Palestine is the only expert mandate with no year of expiry:

"The Special Rapporteur on the question of Palestine to the previous UNCHR, the current UNHRC and the General Assembly was, between 2001 and 2008, John Dugard. Bayefski quotes him as saying that his mandate is to 'investigate human rights violations by Israel only, not by Palestinians'.[52]

"Dugard was replaced in 2008 with Richard Falk, who has compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians with the Nazis' treatment of Jews during the Holocaust.[53][54][55]

"Like his predecessor, Falk's mandate only covers Israel’s human rights record..."

"In July 2011, Richard Falk posted a cartoon some critics has described as anti-Semitic onto his blog. The cartoon depicted a bloodthirsty dog with the word 'USA' on it wearing a kippah, or Jewish headcovering.[58][59][60][61]"

Much of the world sees the effects of Israel's occupation of Palestine every time they turn on their local news, unlike those living in the US; the Holocaust no longer justifies Israeli crimes in Palestine, and, sooner or later, Zionism will disappear into the same sewer as the Nazis did.

United Nations Human Rights Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Kondor3]

"...Conversely, had not 650,000 Jews inflicted their nation by force of arms upon 1.2 million Arabs..."

Had the Arabs not moved-in to seize those lands from their former owners... etc... etc... etc... far back into time... none of which is relevant to France and Iran's nuclear scenario.

"...Human Rights Watch called on the Council to avoid the selectivity that discredited its predecessor..."

Bingo... but none of this is relevant to France and Iran's nuclear scenario.

 

[Kondor3]

France was absolutely correct to reject the Iranian's offers.

Somebody had to... our present Administration sure wasn't giving-off such signals in recent days.

Shocked the hell outta me... some signs of the French actually re-growing long-lost backbone...

But change can be good, and that one was most welcome, and tickled the world's sense of irony and delight.

 

[georgephillip]

France was absolutely correct to reject the Iranian's offers.

Somebody had to... our present Administration sure wasn't giving-off such signals in recent days.

Shocked the hell outta me... some signs of the French actually re-growing long-lost backbone...

But change can be good, and that one was most welcome, and tickled the world's sense of irony and delight.

Can we be sure the French actually stood up to the dastardly Persians, or is Kerry lying again?

" Kerry officially confirmed Western diplomatic chatter on Sunday that contrary to widespread speculation, France was not responsible for scuttling the talks.

"In the talks, France insisted that any agreement must entail Iran suspending construction of its Arak heavy-water reactor, which can produce plutonium, as well as halt uranium enrichment to a concentration of 20 percent. In return, Western powers would ease crippling sanctions that have battered Iran’s economy.

"On Sunday, a senior American official who briefed Israeli reporters and experts in Jerusalem on Sunday said that the six world powers in the talks had in fact approved a working document and presented it to the Iranians, the New York Times cites Herb Keinon of The Jerusalem Post as saying.

“'It was too tough for them,' Keinon quoted the American official as saying of the Iranians. 'They have to go back home, talk to their government and come back.'”

Kerry: World powers agree to nuclear deal, but Iran 'walked away' ? RT News

It seems to me like Kerry and the US have not given up on Wesley Clark:

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia,Sudan and finishing off Iran.'"

 

[Kondor3]

The BBC quotes the Iranian chief negotiator as saying that it was France who put the kabosh on things, in an article dated today...

BBC News - Iran blames Western powers for nuclear talks failure

 

[Moonglow]

Obama was trying to sell out all security interest in the Middle East, destroy Israel, and walk back another promise, all in the name of making a legacy deal for the history books. France, of all countries, said no.

France.

What does that say about the state of US foreign policy?

Not to worry though, Obama got a Nobel Prize for something, even if no one knows what it was.

Marathon talks between major powers and Iran failed on Sunday to produce a deal to freeze its nuclear program, puncturing days of feverish anticipation and underscoring how hard it will be to forge a lasting solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Emerging from a last-ditch bargaining session that began Saturday and stretched past midnight, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, and Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said they had failed to overcome differences. They insisted they had made progress, however, and pledged to return to the table in 10 days to try again, albeit at a lower level.
“A lot of concrete progress has been made, but some differences remain,” Ms. Ashton said at a news conference early Sunday. She appeared alongside Mr. Zarif, who added, “I think it was natural that when we started dealing with the details, there would be differences.”
In the end, though, it was not only divisions between Iran and the major powers that prevented a deal, but fissures within the negotiating group. France objected strenuously that the proposed deal would do too little to curb Iran’s uranium enrichment or to stop the development of a nuclear reactor capable of producing plutonium.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/world/iran-nuclear-talks.html?hpw&rref=world&_r=1&

There is no deal on a deal on a deal to deal with the differences.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

UN resolution 686 and 687 forbade Iraq from having any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, not just nukes. Iraq's nuclear program was destroyed in 1981, by Israel.

Since the UN inspectors kept reporting multiple violations of both those resolutions, and others, Bush decided to go back into Iraq and deal with it. The WMD charge was, at best, a way for idiots to claim he lied.

Guy, nobody went in because he had chemical weapons, the cutting edge weapon of 1914.

We went in because Bush said he was making nukes and was going to give them to Al Qaeda.

Bush lied. Young men and women died.

But, hey, at least he didn't lie about a blow job!!!!!!!!

Everyone knew Saddam had chemical weapons, he demonstrated it by using them. Chemical weapons labs can be set up in a semi trailer, nuclear facilities require fixed locations because the tech is extremely delicate. I remember Bush, and Cheney, both talking about mobile facilities for chemical weapons, yet you want me to believe this was about your delusion that he didn't have nukes when we went looking for chemical weapons.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"The following is a list of United Nations resolutions that concern both Israel and Palestine and bordering states such as Lebanon. The Human Rights Council has adopted more resolutions condemning Israel than it has all other states combined."

Not sure where Iran places on the above list.

List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Human Rights council is famous for only caring about human rights in non Islamic countries.

Because Israel was created to assist the US and its European junior partners in controlling Middle East oil resources, as recent events from Iraq, Libya, and Syria make clear to those not blinded by ideology, the USCHR's special rapporteur on Israel Palestine is the only expert mandate with no year of expiry:

"The Special Rapporteur on the question of Palestine to the previous UNCHR, the current UNHRC and the General Assembly was, between 2001 and 2008, John Dugard. Bayefski quotes him as saying that his mandate is to 'investigate human rights violations by Israel only, not by Palestinians'.[52]

"Dugard was replaced in 2008 with Richard Falk, who has compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians with the Nazis' treatment of Jews during the Holocaust.[53][54][55]

"Like his predecessor, Falk's mandate only covers Israel’s human rights record..."

"In July 2011, Richard Falk posted a cartoon some critics has described as anti-Semitic onto his blog. The cartoon depicted a bloodthirsty dog with the word 'USA' on it wearing a kippah, or Jewish headcovering.[58][59][60][61]"

Much of the world sees the effects of Israel's occupation of Palestine every time they turn on their local news, unlike those living in the US; the Holocaust no longer justifies Israeli crimes in Palestine, and, sooner or later, Zionism will disappear into the same sewer as the Nazis did.

United Nations Human Rights Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, that happened.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

France was absolutely correct to reject the Iranian's offers.

Somebody had to... our present Administration sure wasn't giving-off such signals in recent days.

Shocked the hell outta me... some signs of the French actually re-growing long-lost backbone...

But change can be good, and that one was most welcome, and tickled the world's sense of irony and delight.

Can we be sure the French actually stood up to the dastardly Persians, or is Kerry lying again?

" Kerry officially confirmed Western diplomatic chatter on Sunday that contrary to widespread speculation, France was not responsible for scuttling the talks.

"In the talks, France insisted that any agreement must entail Iran suspending construction of its Arak heavy-water reactor, which can produce plutonium, as well as halt uranium enrichment to a concentration of 20 percent. In return, Western powers would ease crippling sanctions that have battered Iran’s economy.

"On Sunday, a senior American official who briefed Israeli reporters and experts in Jerusalem on Sunday said that the six world powers in the talks had in fact approved a working document and presented it to the Iranians, the New York Times cites Herb Keinon of The Jerusalem Post as saying.

“'It was too tough for them,' Keinon quoted the American official as saying of the Iranians. 'They have to go back home, talk to their government and come back.'”

Kerry: World powers agree to nuclear deal, but Iran 'walked away' ? RT News

It seems to me like Kerry and the US have not given up on Wesley Clark:

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia,Sudan and finishing off Iran.'"

Everyone who is not named Kerry is saying it was France that balked, not Iran. they were getting everything they wanted, and giving up nothing, why should they object?

 

[JoeB131]

[

UN resolution 686 and 687 forbade Iraq from having any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, not just nukes. Iraq's nuclear program was destroyed in 1981, by Israel.

Since the UN inspectors kept reporting multiple violations of both those resolutions, and others, Bush decided to go back into Iraq and deal with it. The WMD charge was, at best, a way for idiots to claim he lied.

Guy, nobody went in because he had chemical weapons, the cutting edge weapon of 1914.

We went in because Bush said he was making nukes and was going to give them to Al Qaeda.

Bush lied. Young men and women died.

But, hey, at least he didn't lie about a blow job!!!!!!!!

Everyone knew Saddam had chemical weapons, he demonstrated it by using them. Chemical weapons labs can be set up in a semi trailer, nuclear facilities require fixed locations because the tech is extremely delicate. I remember Bush, and Cheney, both talking about mobile facilities for chemical weapons, yet you want me to believe this was about your delusion that he didn't have nukes when we went looking for chemical weapons.

Again, we didn't go to war over the Cutting Edge Weapon of 1914 that Saddam didn't have.

Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, Mohammed el-Baradai all said that his chemical stockpiles had been destroyed before the war, and David Kay confirmed this was the case after the war.

Oh, and those mobile chemical labs? (Bush actually claimed they were Biological weapons labs.) Turns out they were mobile weather stations. Whooooops.

 

[georgephillip]

France was absolutely correct to reject the Iranian's offers.

Somebody had to... our present Administration sure wasn't giving-off such signals in recent days.

Shocked the hell outta me... some signs of the French actually re-growing long-lost backbone...

But change can be good, and that one was most welcome, and tickled the world's sense of irony and delight.

Can we be sure the French actually stood up to the dastardly Persians, or is Kerry lying again?

" Kerry officially confirmed Western diplomatic chatter on Sunday that contrary to widespread speculation, France was not responsible for scuttling the talks.

"In the talks, France insisted that any agreement must entail Iran suspending construction of its Arak heavy-water reactor, which can produce plutonium, as well as halt uranium enrichment to a concentration of 20 percent. In return, Western powers would ease crippling sanctions that have battered Iran’s economy.

"On Sunday, a senior American official who briefed Israeli reporters and experts in Jerusalem on Sunday said that the six world powers in the talks had in fact approved a working document and presented it to the Iranians, the New York Times cites Herb Keinon of The Jerusalem Post as saying.

“'It was too tough for them,' Keinon quoted the American official as saying of the Iranians. 'They have to go back home, talk to their government and come back.'”

Kerry: World powers agree to nuclear deal, but Iran 'walked away' ? RT News

It seems to me like Kerry and the US have not given up on Wesley Clark:

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia,Sudan and finishing off Iran.'"

Everyone who is not named Kerry is saying it was France that balked, not Iran. they were getting everything they wanted, and giving up nothing, why should they object?

I'm not clear why Iran should give up its right to develop peaceful applications of nuclear power while Israel gets a free pass on dozens of nuclear weapons. The bottom line for France, the US, and Israel is regime change in Tehran exactly like that in Baghdad and Tripoli, and Iranian nukes are simply a means to that end, IMHO.

 

[Trajan]

"...The Human Rights Council has adopted more resolutions condemning Israel than it has all other states combined..."

If there were more Jews and fewer Arabs on the Council I'm sure that would add-up differently.

Conversely, had not 650,000 Jews inflicted their nation by force of arms upon 1.2 million Arabs in Mandate Palestine of 1948, none of the following would have necessarily occurred:

"As of 2013, Israel had been condemned in 45 resolutions by the Council since its creation in 2006 - the Council had resolved almost more resolutions condemning Israel than on the rest of the world combined.

"The 45 resolutions comprised almost half (45.9%) of all country-specific resolutions passed by the Council, not counting those under Agenda Item 10 (countries requiring technical assistance).[49]

"By April 2007, the Council had passed nine resolutions condemning Israel, the only country which it had specifically condemned.[50] Toward Sudan, a country with human rights abuses as documented by the Council's working groups, it has expressed 'deep concern.'.[50]

"The council voted on 30 June 2006 to make a review of alleged human rights abuses by Israel a permanent feature of every council session.

"The Council's special rapporteur on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is its only expert mandate with no year of expiry.

"The resolution, which was sponsored by Organisation of the Islamic Conference, passed by a vote of 29 to 12 with five abstentions. Human Rights Watch urged it to look at international human rights and humanitarian law violations committed by Palestinian armed groups as well.

"Human Rights Watch called on the Council to avoid the selectivity that discredited its predecessor and urged it to hold special sessions on other urgent situations, such as that in Darfur.[51]"

United Nations Human Rights Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hey George? you have all of those others threads to post in on this, the topic is;

France nukes deal with Iran

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Guy, nobody went in because he had chemical weapons, the cutting edge weapon of 1914.

We went in because Bush said he was making nukes and was going to give them to Al Qaeda.

Bush lied. Young men and women died.

But, hey, at least he didn't lie about a blow job!!!!!!!!

Everyone knew Saddam had chemical weapons, he demonstrated it by using them. Chemical weapons labs can be set up in a semi trailer, nuclear facilities require fixed locations because the tech is extremely delicate. I remember Bush, and Cheney, both talking about mobile facilities for chemical weapons, yet you want me to believe this was about your delusion that he didn't have nukes when we went looking for chemical weapons.

Again, we didn't go to war over the Cutting Edge Weapon of 1914 that Saddam didn't have.

Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, Mohammed el-Baradai all said that his chemical stockpiles had been destroyed before the war, and David Kay confirmed this was the case after the war.

Oh, and those mobile chemical labs? (Bush actually claimed they were Biological weapons labs.) Turns out they were mobile weather stations. Whooooops.

And Obama didn't want to invade Syria over the same cutting edge weapons.

At least you admit that no one, other than you, was talking about mobile nuclear labs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can we be sure the French actually stood up to the dastardly Persians, or is Kerry lying again?

" Kerry officially confirmed Western diplomatic chatter on Sunday that contrary to widespread speculation, France was not responsible for scuttling the talks.

"In the talks, France insisted that any agreement must entail Iran suspending construction of its Arak heavy-water reactor, which can produce plutonium, as well as halt uranium enrichment to a concentration of 20 percent. In return, Western powers would ease crippling sanctions that have battered Iran’s economy.

"On Sunday, a senior American official who briefed Israeli reporters and experts in Jerusalem on Sunday said that the six world powers in the talks had in fact approved a working document and presented it to the Iranians, the New York Times cites Herb Keinon of The Jerusalem Post as saying.

“'It was too tough for them,' Keinon quoted the American official as saying of the Iranians. 'They have to go back home, talk to their government and come back.'”

Kerry: World powers agree to nuclear deal, but Iran 'walked away' ? RT News

It seems to me like Kerry and the US have not given up on Wesley Clark:

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia,Sudan and finishing off Iran.'"

Everyone who is not named Kerry is saying it was France that balked, not Iran. they were getting everything they wanted, and giving up nothing, why should they object?

I'm not clear why Iran should give up its right to develop peaceful applications of nuclear power while Israel gets a free pass on dozens of nuclear weapons. The bottom line for France, the US, and Israel is regime change in Tehran exactly like that in Baghdad and Tripoli, and Iranian nukes are simply a means to that end, IMHO.

I am not sure why, other than your obsession, you think this has anything to do with Israel.

 

[Kondor3]

"...I am not sure why, other than your obsession, you think this has anything to do with Israel."

 

[georgephillip]

If there were more Jews and fewer Arabs on the Council I'm sure that would add-up differently.

Conversely, had not 650,000 Jews inflicted their nation by force of arms upon 1.2 million Arabs in Mandate Palestine of 1948, none of the following would have necessarily occurred:

"As of 2013, Israel had been condemned in 45 resolutions by the Council since its creation in 2006 - the Council had resolved almost more resolutions condemning Israel than on the rest of the world combined.

"The 45 resolutions comprised almost half (45.9%) of all country-specific resolutions passed by the Council, not counting those under Agenda Item 10 (countries requiring technical assistance).[49]

"By April 2007, the Council had passed nine resolutions condemning Israel, the only country which it had specifically condemned.[50] Toward Sudan, a country with human rights abuses as documented by the Council's working groups, it has expressed 'deep concern.'.[50]

"The council voted on 30 June 2006 to make a review of alleged human rights abuses by Israel a permanent feature of every council session.

"The Council's special rapporteur on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is its only expert mandate with no year of expiry.

"The resolution, which was sponsored by Organisation of the Islamic Conference, passed by a vote of 29 to 12 with five abstentions. Human Rights Watch urged it to look at international human rights and humanitarian law violations committed by Palestinian armed groups as well.

"Human Rights Watch called on the Council to avoid the selectivity that discredited its predecessor and urged it to hold special sessions on other urgent situations, such as that in Darfur.[51]"

United Nations Human Rights Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hey George? you have all of those others threads to post in on this, the topic is;

France nukes deal with Iran

Trajan, surely you've noticed the role arms sales play in the Middle East...?

"And much of that stake in the Gulf Cooperation Council states -- Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain -- is centered on the arms business.

"'France could gain financially from the GCC's frustrations over recent U.S. policy in the Middle East,' the U.S. global security consultancy Stratfor observed.

"Significant defense contracts worth tens of billions of dollars are up for grabs in the gulf region, ranging from aircraft to warships to missile systems.

"France is predominantly competing with Britain and the United States for the contracts and is seeking to position itself as a key ally of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates as it looks to strengthen its defense and industrial ties with the region," Stratfor noted.

France boosts arms sales hopes in gulf after nixing Iran pact - UPI.com

Israel was created by western fiat in 1948 to stimulate arms sales in the New Middle East; France and Iran are simply its most recent tools.

 

[JoeB131]

Everyone knew Saddam had chemical weapons, he demonstrated it by using them. Chemical weapons labs can be set up in a semi trailer, nuclear facilities require fixed locations because the tech is extremely delicate. I remember Bush, and Cheney, both talking about mobile facilities for chemical weapons, yet you want me to believe this was about your delusion that he didn't have nukes when we went looking for chemical weapons.

Again, we didn't go to war over the Cutting Edge Weapon of 1914 that Saddam didn't have.

Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, Mohammed el-Baradai all said that his chemical stockpiles had been destroyed before the war, and David Kay confirmed this was the case after the war.

Oh, and those mobile chemical labs? (Bush actually claimed they were Biological weapons labs.) Turns out they were mobile weather stations. Whooooops.

And Obama didn't want to invade Syria over the same cutting edge weapons.

At least you admit that no one, other than you, was talking about mobile nuclear labs.

I really wish you would take your anti-crazy pills before you log on.

Obama wanted to attack (not invade) Syria over chemical weapons, and Americans said,"Hey, they aren't that big of a deal.

That's why Cheney had to lie about NUKES.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Again, we didn't go to war over the Cutting Edge Weapon of 1914 that Saddam didn't have.

Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, Mohammed el-Baradai all said that his chemical stockpiles had been destroyed before the war, and David Kay confirmed this was the case after the war.

Oh, and those mobile chemical labs? (Bush actually claimed they were Biological weapons labs.) Turns out they were mobile weather stations. Whooooops.

And Obama didn't want to invade Syria over the same cutting edge weapons.

At least you admit that no one, other than you, was talking about mobile nuclear labs.

I really wish you would take your anti-crazy pills before you log on.

Obama wanted to attack (not invade) Syria over chemical weapons, and Americans said,"Hey, they aren't that big of a deal.

That's why Cheney had to lie about NUKES.

I thought Cheney lied about Saddam and 9/11. I guess I cant keep up with your delusions.

 

[Kondor3]

"...I'm not clear why Iran should give up its right to develop peaceful applications of nuclear power while Israel gets a free pass on dozens of nuclear weapons..."

Ummmmmm...

Because nobody trusts Iran to build purely civilian, non-weaponized nuclear apps...

...and because The West likes Israel better than it does Iran, and because The West is the Decider-er Big Dog who gets to say...

...and because Israel is surrounded by nations that want to kill it, while Iran is not...

...and because The West doesn't give a frog's fat ass what is 'fair' in this context, so long as it keeps nukes out of the hands of a medieval, radical, militant, martyrdom-sanctioning theocracy?

"...The bottom line for France, the US, and Israel is regime change in Tehran exactly like that in Baghdad and Tripoli, and Iranian nukes are simply a means to that end, IMHO."

Maybe...

Maybe...

OK... sounds good... so what's the down-side?

 

[JoeB131]

"...The bottom line for France, the US, and Israel is regime change in Tehran exactly like that in Baghdad and Tripoli, and Iranian nukes are simply a means to that end, IMHO."

Maybe...

Maybe...

OK... sounds good... so what's the down-side?

That Regime Change was an absolute clusterfuck in Iraq and Libya, so I'm not sure Iran would be any better.

But here's an awesome idea. Instead of sending some poor kid off to fight the next war, let's make up a unit of every loudmouthed asshole like you and Bill Krystol and Charlie Strangelove Krauthammer and send you over to do "regime change" in Iran.

Works for me. Just can't see a downside.